3 ms·
There are many more displays that support hdmi. It is a simpler protocol. Display port is better and more modern, it's packetised so the timing is not fixed by
by mianos 3y ago
There are many more displays that support hdmi. It is a simpler protocol. Display port is better and more modern, it's packetised so the timing is not fixed by the source like udp. HDMI is fixed timing and used to be much simpler hardware.
- tverbeure 3y ago> HDMI is fixed timing and used to be much simpler hardware. What do you mean by 'fixed timing'? The fact that the transmission data rate is proportional to the pixel clock? We're talking HDMI 2.1 here, which uses FRL (fixed rate link) and thus has pixel clock decoupled from the pixel clock just like for DP, with data split into packets. There's not a lot of difference between DP and HDMI in terms of functionality and complexity.
- mianos 3y agoNow I read the spec for 2.1 I see I am wrong and you are correct. I have only ever seen it from SERDES blocks with a 'continuous' clock. Indeed, 2.1 seems similar to DP. It would require quite a bit more logic to do that. I wonder how many TVs support that?
- tverbeure 3y agoIt is true that HDMI 2.1 requires more logic, but one of the annoying parts of the earlier HDMI versions is that a sink needs a PLL that covers a large, continuous frequency range. DP and HDMI FRL only need to support a few fixed frequencies, which is much easier for analog designers to design for.